Smt Krishna Agarwal , Pali V. ITO Ward-1, Pali, Pali

ITA 53/JODH/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7284 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAJAL SINGH JCIT A
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Peak credit; TDS; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 201; 143(2); 69A; 13; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH , JODHPUR BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM ITA. NO. 53/JODH/2021 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2017-18 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL, 70 VINAYAK, DURGADAS NAGAR, PALI-306401. VS. THE ITO, WARD-1, PALI. PAN/GIR NO.: AISPA 8368 D APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN (C.A.), SMT RAKSHA BIRLA (C.A.) & SHRI MOHIT SONI (ADV.) REVENUE BY : MISS KAJAL SINGH (JCIT) A DATE OF HEARING : 12/08/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/09/2021 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI DATED 31.07.2021 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE CIT(A)NFAC HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN VIOLATING THE P RINCIPAL OF FACELESS APPEAL AS ANNOUNCED FOR JUSTICE OF HONEST TAXPAYERS AND THE FUNCTIONING OF FACELESS PROCESSING'S IN HON ESTY AND JUDICIALLY MANNER AND TO AVOID LITIGATION AS CREATE D UNNECESSARY BY AO. ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 2 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE CIT(A) NFAC GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS 68,95,000/- IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT U/S 69A OF THE ACT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE CIT(A) NFAC GROSSLY ERRED IN REPRESENTING ERRON EOUS AND IRRELEVANT FINDING IN THE ORDER WHICH ARE NOT B ORN OUT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AND THEREBY SUSTAINING ARBITRARY ADDITION IN A HYPOTHETICAL WAY BY PUTTING THE ASSESSEE TO ERRONEOUS HARASSMENT AND INCONVENIENCE. 4.THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) NFAC OUGHT TO HAVE ANALYZING THE SUBMISS ION, MATERIAL AND LEGAL & VALID EVIDENCES IN RIGHT PROSP ECTIVE AND JUDICIAL MANNER. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE CIT(A) NFAC GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION MA DE IN RETURNED INCOME WITHOUT HAVING ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENC E OR ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD AR SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM RENTING OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND OTHER INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES A ND FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS 4 ,97,980/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY T O VERIFY THE CASH DEPOSITS DURING THE YEAR AND ACCORDINGLY THE NOTIC E U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED BY THE AO. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SHE HA S DEPOSITED THE CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 68,95,000/- IN HER SAVING BAN K ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE AND ALSO EXPLAINED SUCH ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 3 DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF CASH IN HAND LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE AS ON 01/04/2016 WHICH CAN BE DULY VERIFIABLE FROM BANK S TATEMENTS, CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PLACE D ON RECORD. THE AO ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTION & PRESUMPTION AN D MAKING WRONG ALLEGATION WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY SUCH ALLEGATION HAD TREATED THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS . 68,95,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ASSESSEE AND PASSED THE ASSES SMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 73,92,980/- BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 68,95,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED C ASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT U/S 69A OF THE ACT. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ONLY SOURCE O F INCOME IS RENTAL INCOME WHICH WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL A FTER DEDUCTION OF TDS AND DULY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HOW EVER DUE TO SUDDEN DEATH OF HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE WAS MENTALLY DISTURBED AND FACING LOTS OF FINANCIAL PROBLEMS IN HER LIFE. THAT AFTER THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND AND AS PER WILL OF HER HUSBAND, THE PRO PERTY WHICH WAS IN THE NAME OF HER HUSBAND WAS TRANSFERRED IN HER NAME AND SHE SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT ION TO PURCHASE ANOTHER PROPERTY FOR HER SON AND THE REMAINING AMOU NT TO BE UTILIZED FOR HER SURVIVAL. THE SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY IN ADVANCE WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CH ANNEL FROM THE BUYER OF PROPERTY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE AND ON COMPLETION OF SALE TRANSACTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS CO MPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS AS PER PROVISION OF LAW AND DISCLOSED THE SAM E IN HER RETURN OF A.Y 2016-17. ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 4 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE BANK STATEMENT, IT CAN BE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE SALES C ONSIDERATION FROM SALE OF PROPERTY IN 2014 & 2015 AND THEREAFTER HAS WITHDRAWN THE CASH FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF HOUSE FOR HER SON AN D DUE TO CERTAIN REASONS, THE PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN PURCHASED THEREF ORE OUT OF SUCH CASH WITHDRAWAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS REDEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 68,95,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLEGATION MADE BY THE LD AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE CONTRARY TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD AS FROM BEGINNING THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT SHE HAS WITHDRAWN T HE CASH FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT AND SAME WAS REDEPOSITED IN THE BANK A CCOUNT. THE DETAILS OF CASH WITHDRAWAL & CASH DEPOSITS FROM BAN K ACCOUNT ARE AS FOLLOW:- A.Y 2015 - 16 A.Y 2016 - 17 A.Y 2017 - 18 DATE CASH WITHDRAWAL DATE CASH WITHDRAWA L DATE CASH RE - DEPOSITED 09/10/2014 25000 24/04/2015 300000 30/04/2016 500000 29/10/2014 750000 05/05/2015 200000 02/05/20 16 600000 30/10/2014 750000 20/06/2015 500000 03/05/2016 400000 03/11/2014 500000 21/07/2015 500000 11/05/2016 500000 22/12/2014 700000 07/08/2015 500000 12/05/2016 500000 24/12/2014 500000 09/10/2015 600000 01/06/2016 500000 30/01/2015 200000 29/06 /2016 350000 21/02/2015 600000 30/06/2016 500000 23/02/2015 500000 01/07/2016 500000 25/02/2015 600000 05/07/2016 500000 27/02/2015 500000 06/07/2016 500000 16/03/2015 400000 27/07/2016 300000 ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 5 31/03/2015 500000 04/10/2016 500000 06/1 0/2016 500000 19/12/2016 245000 TOTAL 6525000 TOTAL 2600000 TOTAL 6895000 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE ARBITRARY ALLEGA TIONS MADE BY THE LD AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION OF RS. 68,95,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF INCOME HAS BEEN MADE. THE ABSTRACT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS CONTEXT READ A S UNDER:- 4.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS DETAILS/INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CONTEN TION PUT-FORTH BY ASSESSEE THAT CASH WAS WITHDRAWN IN PRECEDING YE ARS WHICH WAS KEPT FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE AND DUE TO NON-SELEC TION OF PROPER PLACE DEPOSITED BACK THE SAME IN A/C IS FACT UALLY INCORRECT AND NOT AT ALL ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT DURING THE F.Y. 2015-16 ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY SHOWN PURCHASE OF PROP ERTY WORTH RS.1,27,20,200/- WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN IN HE R RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2016-17. THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO KEEPING HUGE CASH AT HOME IS BEYOND ANY IMAGINAT ION AS NO PRUDENT INDIVIDUAL WILL HOLD THE HUGE CASH FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD LOSING OUT TO BANK INTEREST AND ALSO INCREASING THE RISK OR SAFETY OF THE SAME AND THUS ASSESSEE FAILS TO EXPLAIN CASH DE POSITS OF RS.68,95,000/- MADE BY HIM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY VIDE THIS OFFICE S HOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 04.12.2019 ISSUED VIDE ITBA NO.AST/F/143(3)/(SCN)/2019- 20/1021470721(1), THE A SSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.68,95,000/- DEPOSITED IN HER ORIENTAL BANK OF CO MMERCE BANK ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 6 A/C NO. 01782010024530 MAY NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPL AINED MONEY AND BE TAXED U/S 69A OF THE I.T. ACT UNDER TH E HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO REPLY THE SAME ONLINE BY 04.12.2019. 6. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY MADE THE INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AMOUNTI NG TO RS. 1,27,20,200/- OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK IS FACTUALLY & LEGALLY INCORRECT AND ALSO WITHOUT APPLICATION OF M IND AS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND OF ASSESSEE, SHRI RAM PRAKASH AGARWA L ON 24.01.2014, THE PROPERTY WAS LEGALLY TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE ON 31/03/2014 AS PER PROVISION OF LAW AND ALSO VALUE O F SUCH PROPERTY HAD BEEN DETERMINED AT RS 1,27,20,200/- WHICH WAS DISCL OSED BY ASSESSEE IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY AFTER THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE IN HER NAME AND RECEIVED THE SA LES CONSIDERATION IN INSTALLMENT DURING F.Y 2014-15 & 2015-16 DIRECTLY I N HER BANK ACCOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM BANK TIME TO TIME AND THE SAME WAS AGAIN RE-DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER THE AO HAD MADE INCORRECT AND WRONG INTERPR ETATION OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FAILED TO ANALY ZED THE MATERIAL FACTS THAT THE PROPERTY SO TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF ASS ESSEE AFTER DEATH OF HER HUSBAND HAD BEEN SOLD AND OUT OF SUCH SALES TRA NSACTION WHATSOEVER SALES CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HER DIRE CTLY IN BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WAS WITHDRAWAL & RE-DEPOSITED IN SAME BANK AC COUNT. 7. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD NOT ANALYZED TH E DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND EXPLANATION FURNIS HED BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 7 IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND MADE THE ARBITRARY ALLEGAT ION WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE ALLE GATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZED CASH WITHDRAWALS FOR PURCHASE OF ALLEGED PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THE REAL COLOUR/ TRUE CHARACTER OF THE T RANSACTIONS AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE WHICH ARE SUPPORTED FORM LEGA L AND VALID DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH WERE OVERLOOKED BY THE AO, IN ARBITRARY MANNER ARE ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN EYE OF LAW. 8. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT HAD BEEN EXPLAINED WITH LEGAL AND VALI D DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ALLEGATION MADE B Y AO IS APPARENTLY FALSE AND INCORRECT AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE AND AS SUCH ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ILLEGAL OBSERVATION THE ADDITION MADE BY AO MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. FURTHER ALSO THE AO HAD NOT BROUGHT ON REC ORD ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF LEGAL EVIDENCES AS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS LTD V/S CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) HAS HELD THAT NO ASS ESSMENT CAN BE MADE BASED ON PURE GUESS WORK AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE MATERIAL ON HAND. 9. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY LD AO WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND ALSO IN CAUSAL MANNER AS TH E FACTS NARRATED AND OBSERVATION MADE BY AO IN ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT ANALYZED THE INFORMATION IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND SOUGHT TO MAKE ADDITION BY FALSELY & INCORRECT CONCEIVING A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASED THE HOUSE AND CASH WITHDRAWN ARE USED FOR SAME WHICH IS NOT ONLY INCORRECT BUT ALSO CONTRARY TO FACTS ON RECORD. THERE WAS NO DISTANT CONNECTION ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 8 WITH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND OBSERVATION MADE BY HIM IN THE ORDER. IN OTHER WORDS THE ADDITION SO MADE IN A INCORRECT AND FALSE WAY PUTTING THE ASSESSEE TO ENORMOUS HARASSMENT AND INC ONVENIENCE. 10. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MATER IAL OR ANY ADVERSE INFORMATION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHICH SHOWS THE AS SESSEE HAD UTILIZED THE CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANKS AND USED ELSEWH ERE. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- A) HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIND MEDICAL STORES V/S CIT REPORTED IN 117 DTR (RAJ) 78 HELD AS UNDER: - 'COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS . TYARYAMAL BALCHAND (SUPRA), AFTER RELYING ON SEVERAL JUDGMENT S, ALSO UPHELD THE FINDING ABOUT PEAK CREDIT THEORY. THIS COURT IN CIT VS. ISHWARDAS MUTHA (2004) 270 ITR 597 (RAJ.) ALSO ACCE PTED THE CONTENTION TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, THE PEAK CREDIT. W HEN ANY AMOUNT IS PAID, LATER WITHDRAWN FROM THE BOOKS, WOU LD BE AVAILABLE FOR RECYCLING AND ROTATION, UNLESS OTHERW ISE ESTABLISHED AS INVESTED ELSEWHERE BY THE REVENUE. WE HOLD THE A SSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF PEAK CREDIT WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED INSTEAD OF MAKING SEPARATE ADDITION OF ENTI RE AMOUNT. HOWEVER, WE MAY OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO COME TO A DEFINITE FINDING THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY OTHER EXPENDITURE OR INVESTMENT. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMES TO A FINDING THAT WITHDRAWN AMOUNT WA S USED OR SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY OTHER INVESTMENT OR E XPENDITURE THAN THE BENEFIT OF PEAK OF SUCH CREDIT, IN SUCH CI RCUMSTANCES, MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE.' B) ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF R.K. DAVE V/ S ITO REPORTED IN 94 TTJ 19 HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 9 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GIVEN OUR TH OUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WITH REFEREN CE TO FACTS, EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS DIS CUSSED ABOVE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED CASH FLO W STATEMENT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. A COPY OF THE SAME IS ALSO PLACED AT P. 33 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN AN AMOUNT OF RS. 45,000 ON 9 TH JULY, 1990 AND 10 TH JULY, 1990. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE AMOUNTS SO WITHDRAWN WERE UTILIZED ELSEWHERE. MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE TIME GAP BETWEEN THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN AND THE INVESTMENT IN NSCS OR WHERE THE A MOUNT WAS KEPT WOULD NOT ITSELF JUSTIFY THE ADDITION. THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED ONLY IF THE SOURC E OF BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED OR IT COULD HA VE BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THE AMOUNT SO WITHDRAWN WAS UTILI ZED ELSEWHERE. THIS IS NOT THE CASE HERE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR SUSTAINING THE IMPUGNED ADDIT ION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. C) ITAT PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SUNANDA SANJAY C HANDALIYA, ITA NO. 1967/PUN/2018 DATED 02/05/2019 HELD AS UNDER: THE VIEW POINT OF THE AO IN NOT ACCEPTING THE GENU INENESS OF THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON THE GROUN D THAT THE CASH WAS ALLEGEDLY KEPT IN HAND FOR A LONG PERIOD O F TWO YEARS, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW IS NOT TENABLE. ONCE A THAT SUCH AMOUNT WAS SPENT ELSEWHERE. THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN C IT VS. K. SREEDHARAN (1993) 201 ITR 1010 (KERALA) HAS HELD TH AT: THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS BETWEEN 1976-77 AND 1980-81 IS NOT SO LONG A PERIOD AS TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION REGARDING THE CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF THE AMOUNT. 5. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, IT I S SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY FILING RETURNS AND BALANCE S HEETS ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS. THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND FRO M MATURITY OF FDRS IN PAST AND RE-DEPOSITING OF PROCEEDS IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT IN THE INSTANT YEAR, CANNOT BE DOUBTED AS THE FACTUM O F MATURITY OF FDRS HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO. WHEN THE HON BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE HAS ACCEPTED THE ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 10 AVAILABILITY OF UNUTILIZED CASH FOR FOUR YEARS AS R EASONABLE, THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT SUCH AVAILABILITY FOR TWO YEARS IN THE INSTANT CASE. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, I AM SAT ISFIED THAT THE ADDITION WAS WRONGLY SUSTAINED. I, THEREFORE, ORDER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. D) ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI VINAY DAS HRATH GUPTA, ITA NO. 2240/MUM/2018 DATED 05/04/2019 HELD AS UNDE R: 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS INTO HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUN T. WHILE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS, THE AS SESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT SUCH DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE CURRENT ACCOUNT. THOUGH, NO SUBSTANTIVE EV IDENCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CONCLUSIVELY CO-R ELATE WITHDRAWALS WITH THE DEPOSITS, HOWEVER IT IS OBSERV ED, THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUFFICIENT CASH WITHDRAW ALS FROM THE CURRENT ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THIS FACT IS VE RY MUCH EVIDENT FROM THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER (APPEALS) IN PARA 5.3 OF HIS ORDER. THEREFORE, THE AVAILABILITY OF SUFFICIENT CASH AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAK E THE DEPOSITS IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE DOUBTED. MORE SO, WHEN THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE UTILIZATION OF CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE CURRENT AC COUNT IN ANY OTHER ASSETS/ MODE OR MANNER. THAT BEING THE CASE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BEING A CONTRACTOR HE REQUIRED SUFFICIENT CASH AND THE UNUTILIZED CASH IS AGAIN RE -DEPOSITED TO SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED ON MERE PRESUMPTION AND SURMISES. THAT BEING THE CASE, SINCE ASSESSEES CONTENTION HAS NOT BEEN PROVED TO BE FALSE THROUGH PROPER REAS ONING AND SUPPORTING MATERIAL, THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTIO N 68 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, I DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. E) ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S BALDEV RAJ CHARLA REPORTED IN 121 TTJ 366 HELD AS UNDER: INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES- ADDITION UNDER S. 69- CASH DEPOSITS THERE BEING NO MATERIAL WITH IT AUTHORIT IES TO SHOW ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 11 THAT THE AMOUNTS OF CASH DEPOSITS IN QUESTION, ADMI TTEDLY WITHDRAWN FROM BANK AND ASSESSEES CONCERN, WERE UT ILIZED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE ONLY O N THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS TIME GAP BETWEEN THE WITHDRAWALS AND THE CORRESPONDING CASH DEPOSITS. F) ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF GORDHAN V/S ITO, ITA NO. 811/DEL/2015 DATED 19/10/2015 HELD AS UNDER: BUT THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT (A ) ON THE BASIS THAT THERE IS TIME GAP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEES WITHD RAWALS FROM HIS OWN PARTNERSHIP M/S AWI OR FROM HIS OWN BANK. T HERE IS FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD. AO OR BY THE LD. CIT (A ) THAT APART FROM DEPOSITING THESE CASH INTO BANK AS EXPLAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS ANY OTHER USER BY THE ASSESSEE OF THESE AMOUNTS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE WAS A TIME GAP, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REJECTED AND HENCE THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT CORRECT. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. G) ITAT LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. VEENA AWA STHI, ITA NO. 215/LKW/2016 DATED 30/11/2018 HELD AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORD AND HEARD THE R IVAL CONTENTIONS. WE FIND THAT ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS IS EVIDENT FROM HIS ORDER, ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT CASH DEPOSITS WE RE FROM SOME OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME WHICH IS NOT DISCLOSED TO TH E REVENUE. ASSESSING OFFICER NOWHERE IN HIS ORDER HAS BROUGHT OUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING ANY ADDITIONAL SOURCE OF INCOME OTHER THAN THAT DISCLOSED IN THE R ETURN NOR ASSESSING OFFICER COULD SPELL OUT IN HIS ORDER THAT CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FROM SOME UNDISCLOSED SOUR CE. ALL THROUGHOUT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RAISED SUSPICION O N THE ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 12 BEHAVIORAL PATTERN OF FREQUENT WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOS ITS BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO LAW IN THE COUNTRY WHICH PREV ENTS CITIZENS TO FREQUENTLY WITHDRAW AND DEPOSIT HIS OWN MONEY. D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BEFORE THE REVENUE CLEARLY CLAR IFIES THAT ON EACH OCCASION AT THE TIME OF DEPOSIT IN HER BANK AC COUNT, ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT AVAILABILITY OF CASH WHICH IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. ENTIRE TRANSACTION OF WITH DRAWALS AND DEPOSITS ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ARE VERIFIABLE FROM RELEVANT RECORDS. ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE ON EACH OCCASION AT THE TIME OF DEPOSIT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT ON DIFFERENT DATES DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AND WE FIND THAT HIS DECISION IS BASED ON FACTS ON RECORD AND IS SUPPORT ED BY ADEQUATE REASONING AND, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT WANT TO INTERFE RE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AND ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) SUSTAINING RELIEF GRANTED TO THE ASSESS EE. H) ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MUON COMPUTING P . LTD. VS.ITO, ITA NO. 7606/DEL/2019 DATED 04/08/2021 HELD AS UNDE R: 9. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THA T REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL SUGGESTING THAT THE WITHDR AWAL MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE UTILIZED FOR MAKING PAYMENTS. IT IS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE AMOUNTS SO WITHDRAWN FRO M THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS UTILIZED FOR ANY OTHER UNDISCLOSED PURP OSES. FURTHER, IT IS NOTICED THAT LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT DESPITE HAVING SUFFICIENT CASH IN HAND, THE ASSESSEE WITHDRAW THE AMOUNT. IT IS CORRECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN HIGHER AMOUNTS THAN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEARS BUT THAT CANNOT BE SOLE R EASON FOR MAKING ADDITION PURELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION. F URTHER, I FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE REASONING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT THE AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN TO JUSTIFY THE CASH DEPOSITS D URING DEMONETIZATION PERIOD I.E. BETWEEN 09.11.2016 TO 30 .12.2016. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE CASH WAS WITHDRAWN MUCH PRIOR TO SUCH ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 13 EVENT. SO FAR OBSERVATION REGARDING SHARP INCREASE IN PAYABLE EXPENSES IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE BOGUS. THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE PURELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION. SUCH ACTION OF AUTHORITIES BELOW CANN OT BE AFFIRMED. I, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELET E THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THUS, GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH IS APPEAL IS ALLOWED. I) ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SHRI M. PRABHAKAR, ITA NO. 1727/HYD/2014 DATED 11/11/2016 HELD AS UNDE R: 9. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS. 34. 70 LAKHS DURING THIS AY AND THERE IS SUFFICIENT CASH AVAILAB LE IN HIS POSSESSION AS PER THE CASH BOOK AND WEALTH TAX RETU RN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE MUTE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHE THER THE CASH DEPOSITED WAS COMING OUT OF THE CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS KEPT BY HIM FOR LAST TWO YEARS. IT WAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD WHY HE HAS WITHDRAWN SO MUCH OF M ONEY AND WHAT MADE THE ASSESSEE TO KEEP SUCH HUGE MONEY IN H AND. BUT, ON RECORD, SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT HE HAD SUFFICIENT MONEY. EVEN THE AO COULD NOT BRING ANY P ROOF THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT UTILIZED OR APPLIED THE CASH W ITHDRAWN TWO YEARS BACK, EXCEPT MAKING A REMARK THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF KEEPING SUCH AMOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE BEING A NRI. HE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD, WHY HE CANNOT KEEP SO MUCH OF CA SH IN HAND AND NO CONTRARY FINDINGS WERE GIVEN BY HIM AGAINST THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE. AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION M ERELY ON CONJECTURES/SURMISES/SUSPICION AND NO PROPER REASON S WERE GIVEN WHY HE CANNOT KEEP THE CASH IN HAND EXCEPT THE REMA RK OF BEING AN NRI. IN OUR VIEW, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF DHAKESWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE AO CANNOT COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PURELY ON GUESS AND WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO EVIDENCE OR ANY MATERIAL AT ALL. ALSO IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 14 UMACHARAN SHAW & BROTHERS (SUPRA), THE APEX COURT H AS HELD THAT AO CANNOT COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT MERELY ON SU SPICION WHICH CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF PROOF IN THESE MATTE RS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAID CASES, WE HOLD THAT THE AO MADE T HE ASSESSMENT MERELY ON SUSPICION AND WITHOUT BRINGING ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT ASSESSEE CANNO T KEEP THE CASH IN HIS HAND BEING A NRI. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOL D THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 34,70,00 0/- MADE BY THE AO AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENU E IN THIS REGARD. 11. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO HOLDING THAT THE KEEPING HUGE CASH AT HOUSE FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD IS BEYOND ANY IMAGINATION AS THE ONLY INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS INTEREST INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITT ED THAT THIS IS A MERE ASSUMPTION AND HAS NO LEGAL BASIS AND REFERENC E WAS DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS . K. SREEDHARAN (1993) 201 ITR 1010 (KERALA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD TH AT THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS BETWEEN 1976-77 AND 1980-81 IS NOT SO LO NG A PERIOD AS TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION REGARDING THE CONTINUED AVAIL ABILITY OF THE AMOUNT. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) MAY BE DELETED. 12. PER CONTRA, THE LD. CIT/DR RELIED ON THE FINDIN G OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND OUR REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO THE FIND INGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH ARE CONTAINED AT PARA 6 OF HIS ORDER W HICH READS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 15 6. GROUND NOS. 2, 3 AND 4: THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ORDER OF AO HAS BEEN GONE THROUGH . THE APPELLANT HAD DEPOSITED THE CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.68 ,95,000/- ON DIFFERENT DATES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED W ITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT IT W AS DEPOSITED OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM SAME BANK AC COUNT IN PREVIOUS YEARS. THE APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITTED THAT T HE AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR HER SON BUT DUE TO CERTAIN REASON, THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE PURCHASED AND THE SAME AMOUNT WAS REDEPOSITED. HOWEVER, KEEPING HUGE CASH AT HOUSE FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD IS BEYOND ANY IMAGINAT ION AS THE ONLY INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS INTEREST INCOME. TH EREFORE, WHY WOULD INDIVIDUAL WILL HOLD SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT IN CA SH IN HAND AND FORGO THE INTEREST INCOME, WHICH COULD HAVE BEE N EARNED. FURTHER ON PERUSAL OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE AP PELLANT, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE REDEPOSITED CASH WAS FURTHER TRA NSFERRED TO SAME OTHER PARTIES THROUGH CHEQUE/ RTGS FOR OTHER P URPOSE. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION DOES NOT SEEMS TO BE BON AFIDE. THE CASE LAW RELIED BY THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN GONE THR OUGH AND IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED UP ON, HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS HERE BY SUSTAINED. G ROUND NOS. 2,3 AND 4 OF THE APPELLANT ARE DISMISSED. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION RELATES TO SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 68,95,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUN T MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE AND THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING SUCH SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS IN TH E NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN OPERATED BY HER AND THE CASH HAS ALSO BEEN ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 16 DEPOSITED BY HER. THUS, THE FACTUM OF BANK ACCOUNT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE AND DEPOSIT OF CASH BY THE ASSESSEE HERSEL F IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND THEREFORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WELL WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION TO ENQUIRE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF SUC H DEPOSITS AND SEEK EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE AND EXAMINE WHETHER T HE EXPLANATION SO FURNISHED IS REASONABLE, APPROPRIATE AND SATISFACTO RY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. 14. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS EXPLAINED THAT OUT OF EARLIER YEARS CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM HER BANK AC COUNT WHICH WERE AVAILABLE AS CASH BALANCE AS ON 01/04/2016, THE ASS ESSEE HAD DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 68,95,000/- IN HER BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS SOLD A PROPERTY, TRANSFERRED IN HER NAME AFTER THE DEATH O F HER HUSBAND, FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS 1,31,45,200/- DURING THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2015-16 AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN INSTALL MENTS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15 AND FINANCIAL 2015-16 DIRECT LY IN HER BANK ACCOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN FROM TIME TO TIME AND DUE TO NON-FULFILLMENT OF PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE CAS H WAS WITHDRAWN, IT WAS AGAIN RE-DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2016-17 HAS DISCLOSED SALE CONSID ERATION ON SALE OF PLOT OF LAND FOR RS 1,31,45,200/- AND OFFERED CAPIT AL GAINS TO TAX. THE PLOT HAS BEEN SOLD THROUGH A REGISTERED DEED AND TH E VALUATION HAS BEEN DETERMINED AT RS 1,31,45,200/- BY THE STAMP DU TY AUTHORITY. THUS, THE SALE CONSIDERATION EQUIVALENT TO STAMP DU TY VALUE HAS BEEN DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO FIND ING THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 17 HAS RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE DECLARED SALE CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, GIVEN THAT THE SALE CONSI DERATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED DIRECTLY IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT, T HE SOURCE OF CASH WITHDRAWALS IN THE EARLIER TWO YEARS HAS BEEN CLEAR LY DEMONSTRATED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WE SEE NO REASON BUT TO ACCEPT THE SAID EXPLANATION WHICH IS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THROUGH THE SALE DOCU MENTATION AND TAX FILINGS BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWALS IN TH E EARLIER TWO YEARS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE AND ONLY REAS ON WHY THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CASH DEPOSITS IN T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS OUT OF EARLIER YEARS WITHDRAWALS H AS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED IS THAT KEEPING HUGE CASH AT HOME FOR SUCH A LONG P ERIOD IS BEYOND ANY IMAGINATION. IN THIS REGARD, WE BELIEVE THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY STANDARD YARDSTICK WHICH CAN BE APPLIED AND WHAT NE EDS TO BE EXAMINED IS THE REASONABILITY OF THE EXPLANATION SO FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF EACH CASE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE CA SH WAS WITHDRAWN FOR THE PURPOSES OF PURCHASE OF ANOTHER PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HER SON HOWEVER, THE TRANSACTION COULDNT FRUCTIFY AND AS A RESULT, THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO RE-DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT. IN AN IDEAL SITUATION, SUCH AN EXPLANATION IS EXPECTED TO BE SUPPORTED BY SOME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HOWEVER, MERE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION CANNOT BE A REASON ENOUGH TO ALLEGE A NY MALAFIDE IN THE EXPLANATION SO SUBMITTED ESPECIALLY WHERE THE ASSES SEE HAS EXPLAINED AND DULY DISCLOSED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT OUT OF WHICH THE WITHDRAWALS HAVE BEEN MADE AND HAS THUS E STABLISHED THE ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 18 NECESSARY LINKAGE AND AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND. THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES CITED AT THE BAR BY THE L D AR ALSO LAYS DOWN A BROAD PROPOSITION THAT MERE TIME GAP BETWEEN WITH DRAWALS AND DEPOSITS CANNOT BE A SOLE BASIS FOR REJECTING THE E XPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND WHE RE THERE IS NO MATERIAL THAT AMOUNT SO WITHDRAWN HAS BEEN UTILIZED SOMEWHERE ELSE AND THUS SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE BASIS TO HOLD THAT THE EXPLANATION SO FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND FIND THE EXPLANATION SO FURNISHED IS R EASONABLE, APPROPRIATE AND SATISFACTORY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND HEREBY DIRECT THE ADDITION SO MADE BE DELETED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/09/2021. SD/- SD/- ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JODHPUR DATED:- 07/09/2021. *SANTOSH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. A. THE APPELLANT- SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL, PALI. 2. THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-1, PALI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021 SMT. KRISHNA AGARWAL VS. ITO 19 5. DR, ITAT, JODHPUR. 6. GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 53/JODH/2021} BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR